Commie Dopehead Sex Maniacs

Posted on | July 2, 2016 | 137 Comments

“Many young people turned to drugs and immoral lifestyles; these youth became known as hippies. They went without bathing, wore dirty, ragged, unconventional clothing, and deliberately broke all codes of politeness or manners. Rock music played an important part in the hippie movement and had great influence over the hippies. Many of the rock musicians they followed belonged to Eastern religious cults or practiced Satan worship.”
— America: Land I Love

Socialism, drug abuse and sexual perversion — during the 1960s, the connections between these phenomena were the subject of much discussion in America as university campuses erupted in protests, drug-addled hippies crowded into San Francisco and the so-called Sexual Revolution emerged in all its polymorphous variations. Naive dreams of “peace” and “love” in the groovy Age of Aquarius quickly came crashing down in the squalor, madness and murder of Altamont, the Manson cult, and the explosion that killed three Weather Underground terrorists. By 1970, any intelligent person who ever believed in all that hippie utopian nonsense had abundant evidence to inspire a reconsideration of their misguided idealism. Yet most of these young radicals never turned back from their destructive mission and the remaining survivors of the Sixties, now in their 70s or 80s, occasionally turn up in TV documentaries reminiscing fondly about how glorious it all was.

During a February radio interview, Texas Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert was asked about the surge of support for self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders in the Democrat presidential primary. Gohmert blamed the influence of “hippies from the Sixties” who gained tenure as university professors and, by “teaching the teachers” had succeeded in “rewriting history and keeping [young people] from realizing socialism has never worked, it will never work in this world.” Gohmert’s quote was featured on left-wing blogs as one of those Crazy Things Republicans Say, yet it was a simple statement of fact. Anyone can examine, e.g., the career of Bill Ayers, the terrorist who became a professor of education. Gohmert cited the example of Ayers in a subsequent interview with Stuart Varney on Fox Business Channel in which he said, “If you go to teach as a professor in the universities and you teach the teachers, then the teachers go down and miseducate the young people.”

The phenomenon described by Gohmert is well-documented. Roger Kimball’s 1990 book Tenured Radicals: How Politics Has Corrupted Our Higher Education is a good starting point for anyone who wants to understand this problem. One of the great difficulties in explaining this to young people is that they know practically nothing about the Cold War and the reality of the Soviet menace. For more than 40 years, the central fact of American politics was that the United States was leading what John F. Kennedy called “a long twilight struggle” against the threat of Communist tyranny. However, because anti-American leftists have captured control of the teaching of history in our universities, what little students learn about the Cold War is taught from what can only be described as a pro-Communist perspective. In their 2003 book In Denial: Historians, Communism, and Espionage, John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr show the extent to which academic historians deliberately obscure and distort the truth about Soviet-backed espionage in the 1940s and ’50s. Academia’s commitment to indoctrinating students with an anti-American worldview can perhaps be best understood by examining how “McCarthyism” is presented as an irrational paranoia — a “witch hunt” that wrongly targeted innocent liberals with false accusations — when in fact, the American Communist Party (CPUSA) was a Kremlin-controlled instrument of subversion that harbored Soviet spies. M. Stanton Evans’ 2007 book Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies is a must-read for anyone interested in “McCarthyism.” What a careful reader discerns is that McCarthy was not, as he has been falsely portrayed by liberals, a man who ran around accusing people of being Communist spies. The FBI was doing an excellent job of breaking up Soviet espionage networks, and needed no help from Senator McCarthy in that regard. Instead, in his investigation of policies that permitted Soviet spies to infiltrate the federal government in the 1930s and ’40s, McCarthy was seeking to identify the officials responsible for lax security policies that had made this penetration possible. What almost no one knew at the time was that the Venona decryptions of Soviet diplomatic messages had enabled U.S. intelligence to learn specifics of the Soviet espionage operation. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover passed along very valuable information to McCarthy, but because the source of this information was a closely guarded secret, it was impossible for McCarthy to show the proof of how he knew what he knew. This is why so many people wrongly believe McCarthy was “discredited” and that he was engaged in a reckless “witch hunt.” It is true that McCarthy was an imperfect man who made mistakes, but as Evans’ book amply documents, McCarthy was a patriot, and a better man than his enemies. Furthermore, as Evans demonstrates by citing the facts of case after case, Joe McCarthy was right.

Ignorance of Cold War history is a major reason so many young Americans are unable to understand why the collapse of the Soviet Union — “the Evil Empire,” as Ronald Reagan famously called it — proved the futility of socialism. If the Bolsheviks had been unable to bring about the egalitarian utopia promised by Marx and Engels, and if tens of millions of innocent people had died in the disastrous effort to implement “the dictatorship of the proletariat,” was this not sufficient proof that socialism was a deadly error? Yet the facts of Marxist-Leninist failure are deliberately obscured, and a dishonest version of Cold War history is promulgated, by the left-wing professors who dominate academia.

In a similar manner, the history of the Sixties has for many years been taught as a triumph of Progress, in which enlightened Youth overthrew the oppressive forces of right-wing bigotry and intolerance. Any young person who wishes to disabuse themselves of this counterfactual hippie mythology can start by reading Destructive Generation by Peter Collier and David Horowitz. They were both leading activists of the New Left during the 1960s, as editors of the radical journal Ramparts, but by the 1970s they had become disillusioned and, in the 1980s, emerged as supporters of Ronald Reagan. Until you have read Destructive Generation, you really can’t claim to understand what went wrong in the 1960s, and almost no one employed as a professor at any American university will acknowledge this lesson. Nearly every “educated” young person nowadays accepts without question the triumph-of-Progress narrative of the Sixties. This probably explains why recovering cocaine addict Tiernan Hebron, who graduated from San Francisco State University in 2014 with a degree in psychology, was arrested while protesting topless for Bernie Sanders.

 

Commie dopehead sex maniacs — how did American society travel full circle and end up in this weird time warp flashback to the 1960s? Well, the true history of the Sixties has been suppressed, which is why left-wing blogger John Avarosis freaked out in 2013 upon discovering that some private Christian schools in Louisiana were teaching the truth about hippies. The quote about “drugs and immoral lifestyles” of dirty Satan-worshipping hippies was featured in Avarosis’ blog after he learned this eighth-grade history book, from the Christian homeschooling publisher A Beka, was being used by some schools enrolling students whose tuition was funded by a new K-12 voucher program enacted by Louisiana’s Republican-controlled legislature. Ask yourself this: Why does a liberal blogger care so much what Louisiana kids learn about hippies?

This answer is that what we believe about history has a lot to do with what we believe about politics and, furthermore, Marxism is based on a specific theory known as historical materialism: “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles,” as Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels declared in the 1848 Communist Manifesto, and by teaching children history from this perspective, the leftists who control the education system indoctrinate our nation’s youth with a worldview that is anti-capitalist, anti-American and anti-Christian. Why do you think a University of Southern California student would vow her intention to destroy “our capitalist imperialist white supremacist cisheteronormative patriarchy”? The answer is as simple as two words: Public education.

Commie dopehead sex maniacs are celebrated as heroes in the history taught in American public schools, and liberals are shocked to think that anyone would dare criticize the drug-addled hippies of the Sixties.

Testimony by an Expert Witness

What effect did hallucinogenic drug use have on the hippies? What role did this phenomenon play in the political and social upheavals that began during the 1960s? By a strange coincidence, one of my readers is a relative of a recognized expert on this subject. Friday morning I got an email about Dr. Harvey Powelson, who had been staff psychiatrist with the student health service at the University of California-Berkeley. The reader mentioned Dr. Powell’s critical views about the early push to provide contraceptives to UC students, in the context of what I wrote Thursday about “sexually active” people and the herpes epidemic. However, the reader also mentioned Dr. Powelson’s pioneering research on the effects of marijuana use. Dr. Powelson expanded on what is known as “amotivational syndrome,” i.e., the tendency of marijuana users to become idle and lose ambition, concluding in 1971 “that the effects of marihuana are cumulative . . . that after a period of prolonged use a disorder of thinking characterized by a lack of coherence and a pathological thinking process results.” Because of his expertise, Dr. Powelson was called to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1974, and I will quote here his statement at that hearing:

In 1965, I was chief of the Department of Psychiatry in the Student Health Service at the University of California in Berkeley. It was the first year of the student riots. It was also the first year that hallucinogens were becoming widely used and I, as the person responsible for mental health on the campus, was vigorously involved in the debate about psilocybin, LSD, and mescaline.
In the spring of that year a reporter for the Daily Californian, the student newspaper, asked for my opinion on marijuana. At that time I lacked any direct experience as a physician with marijuana users. The medical literature was sparse, but in general seemed to be saying that there was no proof of long-term harmful effects from marijuana. I summarized this for the reporter and said there was no proof of harm and that it should be legalized and controlled. In general, this view met with approval from most of the students and most of my professional colleagues.
In 1965, the use of marijuana spread through the Berkeley campus. Simultaneously its use was spreading to all the colleges and universities across the country. From the campus communities it spread at an accelerating rate through the surrounding communities. By now its use is subject to no age, social, or geographical barriers.
My place of observation was unique. I was routinely meeting with deans and administrators who were dealing with the drug problem and the students who were in academic and disciplinary difficulties as a consequence of the use of marijuana and its derivatives.
Most importantly, I was in daily contact with the constant flow of students through the student health service and the psychiatric clinic and hospital.
During this time (1965-1972) an increasing number of patients were using marijuana. My best guess, based on surveys and impressions, is that more than 80 per cent used it at one time or another in college. More than 50 per cent used it “socially” (1-2 times per week), and about 10 per cent were heavy users (at least 1 time daily).
My first important shift in thinking occurred as a result of observations made during psychotherapy with a young man, S., who was bright enough to be getting his law degree and Ph.D simultaneously and competent enough to be learning to fly and deal in real estate at the same time. As we proceeded in our work together, I came to know S.’s way of thinking: i.e., how he thought. Most of us do this without thinking about it. All of us come to know to some degree the way our friends and colleagues think. In therapy, the opportunity to hear someone think out loud about a problem important to him maximizes the opportunity to come to know how he uses or misuses logic, remembers clearly or not at all, does or does not exercise good judgment about his own thinking, and whether he is able to know his own feelings. We had made enough headway so that S. had begun to be able to observe and understand his own thinking. Periodically, we had hours (I was seeing him twice weekly) when his thinking became mushy. If I tried to follow him, my head began to spin. When I protested that he’d become impossible to listen to, he’d argue that his own experience was that he was thinking more clearly, more insightfully, than ever. On one such occasion, he mentioned that he’d been to a party two nights before where he’d had particular good “grass.” In Berkeley, 1968, that was not a particularly memorable remark, but we thought there might be some connection with his thinking. This same series of events recurred often enough so that I finally was able to [diagnose after the fact] that S. had some “mind-expanding drug,” usually marijuana.
S., because he was a good observer, helped show me another aspect of the thinking disorder I’m describing. Central to his difficulties was a paranoid stance toward the world. By this I mean a style of thinking characterized by a constant suspicion that one is being controlled; e.g., by the establishment, the system, etc.; and simultaneously a constant unwitting search for people and situations which will do just that; e.g., drugs, demagogues. If this manner of thinking is carried further, it blends into the condition usually called paranoia. Here the subject is controlled by voices, God, or whatever, and at the same time, he is very often “against his will” being controlled by a state hospital or jail. S. was forever talking about his search for someone or something he could trust. He very frequently clutched to himself people who were totally untrustworthy and hurt and rejected others who manifestly admired him.
When he had used marijuana, his thinking became more paranoid, i.e., he became more mistrustful of me, for instance, and at the same time, he became more wily so that he talked glibly, using cliches, theories, and “insights,” all to avoid noticing concretely and immediately whatever he was really doing and feeling in his relationship with me, as well as his relationships outside. In short, the pathological part of his thinking was exaggerated in two ways:
(1) he was more suspicious and
(2) he was more adept at fooling himself about what he was up to, while simultaneously maintaining how “aware,” “in touch,” and “loving” he was.
S. continued in therapy but also continued to use marijuana and hashish. Toward the end of his therapy I decided that so long as he muddied his thinking in this way, there was no use continuing. He, however, suffered a fatal accident (as a result of an error in judgment) before his therapy was terminated.
As I was becoming familiar with these effects of marijuana on S., I gradually learned to pick up signs when they were more subtle. I came to observe the same changes in others, i.e., that marijuana exacerbated the pathological aspects of their thinking.
Following the above described observations, I saw the same picture more and more frequently. The essence of the pattern is that with small amounts of marijuana (approximately three joints of street grade), memory and time sense are interfered with. With regular usage the active principles cause more and more distorted thinking. The user’s field of interest gets narrower and narrower as he focuses his attention on immediate sensation. At the same time his dependence and tolerance is growing. As he uses more of the drug, his ability to think sequentially diminishes. Without his awareness, he becomes less and less adequate in areas where judgment, memory, and logic are necessary. As this happens, he depends more and more on pathological patterns of thinking. Ultimately all heavy users (i.e., daily users) develop a paranoid way of thinking.
After I had become aware of the generality of this sequence, another reporter from the Daily Californian interviewed me to see if my opinions had changed in the interim. In the course of that interview, I realized in a concrete and explicit way that they had. The headline read, “Psychiatrist says pot smokers can’t think straight.” This time the response of the community and colleagues was not so approving. It is an interesting fact that questioning the claims of marijuana users leads to much more anger, vilification, and character assassination than does the opposite stance.
In subsequent years in Berkeley, both at the clinic and in my private practice, I have observed the long-term effects of cannabis. Originally, my observation was that students who had “dropped out” into the “drug scene” and were attempting to return were finding it difficult if not impossible. A frequent story is that the young person has become aware that the life he’s been leading is unsatisfactory and unproductive. He then stops drugs for six months or so and re-enters the university. When he returns to school, however, he finds that he can’t think clearly and that, in ways he finds difficult to describe, he can’t use his mind in the way he did before. Such people also seem to be aware that they’ve lost their will some place, that to do something, to do anything, requires a gigantic effort; they have become will-less — what we call anomie. They need an external director. They are ripe for a demagogue.
The changes in the capacity to think in some subjects are long lasting, if not permanent. One of my original (1967) subjects was a member of the junior faculty. He “dropped out” and used hashish exclusively for 18 months in daily doses. When he realized that it was interfering with his physical coordination, he stopped all drugs. Two years subsequent to this he returned to the university. He found that he could not do mathematics at a level which he had found possible before. Three and a half years later, his conviction was that the change was permanent. My own observations of him and other such gifted people have led me to the same conclusion, that the damage may be permanent.
My stance toward marijuana has shifted to the extent I now think it is the most dangerous drug we must contend with for the following reasons:

1. Its early use is beguiling. It gives the illusion of feeling good. The user is not aware of the beginning loss of mental functioning. I have never seen an exception to the observation that marijuana impairs the user’s ability to judge the loss of his own mental functioning.
2. After one to three years of continuous use, the ability to think has become so impaired that pathological forms of thinking begin to take over the entire thought process.
3. Chronic heavy use leads to paranoid thinking.
4. Chronic heavy use leads to deterioration in body and mental functioning which is difficult and perhaps impossible to reverse.
5. For reasons which I can’t elucidate here, its use leads to a delusional system of thinking which has inherent in it the strong need to seduce and proselytize others. I have rarely seen a regular marijuana user who wasn’t actively “pushing.”

As these people move into government, the professions, and the media, it is not surprising that they continue as “pushers”, thus continuously adding to the confusion that this committee is committed to ameliorate.

This concluding paragraph of Dr. Powelson’s testimony is important. The tendency of marijuana users to “proselytize” others, he suggested, was observable in the efforts to push for decriminalization of marijuana, a proposal that the Senate committee in 1974 was addressing. A few years later, during the presidency of Jimmy Carter, there was a significant rollback of federal “War on Drugs” (begun under Richard Nixon). One reason the Left so hated the 12-year White House tenure of Reagan-Bush was that the War on Drugs was renewed.

‘Pathological Patterns of Thinking’

It is also worthwhile noticing what Dr. Powelson said about how his marijuana-using patient, despite being illogical to the point of incoherence, insisted “he was thinking more clearly, more insightfully, than ever.” The long-term user “becomes less and less adequate in areas where judgment, memory, and logic are necessary” and develops “pathological patterns of thinking.” Because this psychological effect is cumulative, after the heavy marijuana quits and tries to go back to a normal life, he finds himself unable to function at the level he did before he started using — or at least, that was Dr. Powelson’s conclusion based on his clinical experience in the late 1960s. Dopeheads don’t like to admit that their habit has any harmful effect, and as Dr. Powelson told the Senate, experts who disagreed with pro-marijuana arguments became targets of “anger, vilification, and character assassination.”

Sic semper hoc.

Misery loves company, and dopeheads with “pathological patterns of thinking” don’t like being told they have a problem. Because “marijuana impairs the user’s ability to judge the loss of his own mental functioning,” as Dr. Powelson observed, it becomes impossible for the dopehead to recognize that he is suffering the symptoms of long-term use. The paranoia described by Dr. Powelson often takes the form of reversals and projections, so that the dopehead contends that the “system” is the problem, rather than his own drug-influenced beliefs and behaviors.

Do you remember Professor Erik Loomis? He is the academic expert on homosexual lumberjacks who, in 2012, became notorious because of his deranged violent remarks about Second Amendment activists. It was Professor Loomis who inspired me to remark: “When I said that the mentally ill should be in institutions, public universities weren’t the kind of institutions I had in mind.” Readers will perhaps not be surprised to learn that Professor Loomis is in favor of legalizing marijuana and unionizing workers in the marijuana industry.

When weirdos like Professor Loomis are hired at taxpayer expense to teach history, what does this tell us about the values of academia? And what happens when these warped values become widely accepted? One effect is that, as abnormal behavior is increasingly seen as acceptable by the intellectual elite, society is expected to tolerate these behaviors and we begin “defining deviancy down,” as Daniel Patrick Moynihan observed:

I proffer the thesis that [since the mid-1960s] the amount of deviant behavior in American society has increased beyond the levels the community can “afford to recognize” and that, accordingly, we have been re-defining deviancy so as to exempt much conduct previously stigmatized, and also quietly raising the “normal” level in categories where behavior is now abnormal by any earlier standard. . . .

Among the examples Moynihan discussed were the deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill and the breakdown of the family. He observed that “a large increase in what once was seen as deviancy has provided opportunity to a wide spectrum of interest groups that benefit from re-defining the problem as essentially normal and doing little to reduce it.” As divorce and unwed motherhood became redefined as “normal,” the problems so often experienced by fatherless children became normalized, too. Violence between street gangs — often fighting over “turf” in their drug-trafficking operations — has turned many major cities into war zones. In Chicago, there have already been 333 homicides so far this year; in the month of June alone, more than 400 people in Chicago were shot, 67 of whom died of their wounds. Murder is so common in Chicago that this incessant carnage — averaging about a dozen homicides a week — is not even considered newsworthy by the national media.

The tendency toward making “previously stigmatized” behavior exempt from criticism, to tolerate behavior that was considered “abnormal by any earlier standard,” is most obvious in the area of sexuality, where academia has led the way in destigmatizing perversion.

In 2001, for example, a University of Cincinnati professor published an article entitled “The Myth of the Heterosexual: Anthropology and Sexuality for Classicists.” This built on the professor’s earlier work, “The Teratogenic Grid,” published in the 1997 anthology Roman Sexualities. More recently, he contributed a chapter entitled “Sex, Popular Beliefs, and Culture” to the 2011 anthology A Cultural History of Sexuality in the Classical World. The Yale-educated professor’s influential work popularized the idea that the ancient Greeks and Romans did not classify sexual behavior by categories that we recognize today.

 

Also, we might note, nowhere in the works of Plato or Cicero do we find a phrase that can be translated as “child pornography.”

University of Cincinnati professor
arrested on child pornography charges
A University of Cincinnati professor has been arrested on child porn charges. According to court papers, Holt Parker told agents that he’s collected hundreds of videos and images of child pornography. He told them he traded child porn every day. Parker answered to charges in court on March 16. A federal judge ordered him held on $250,000 bond.
The FBI says agents arrested Parker on charges of distribution and receipt of child pornography in Clifton on March 15. He’s also charged with “destruction of property to prevent seizure”, for allegedly trying to destroy a thumb drive as agents were entering his home. They say he told them he’d recently downloaded thousands of files. . . .
He allegedly told them he started trading child porn online five or six years ago.
When the FBI came to his home, they say Parker apologized to his wife for his behavior and for ruining their lives, according to court papers. He allegedly told them he’d planned to commit suicide if he was caught.

In his online trading of child pornography, Professor Holt used the identity “Mr. Cruel Daddy,” with an email account he had created in 2008. That account was linked to another account, “Anne Thrax,” that Professor Holt evidently created in 1998. Professor Holt’s wife, Barbara Burrell, who has a Ph.D. from Harvard, is also a professor at the University of Cincinnati. So this Yale-educated professor married to a Harvard-educated professor, apparently spent 10 years online using the fake female identity “Anne Thrax” before creating a another identity “Cruel Daddy,” and admitted to the FBI he had been trading child pornography over the Internet since 2010. He had thousands of files.

This is probably another random coincidence, like the case of University of Southern California Professor Walter Lee Williams, who was sentenced to five years in prison in 2014 for “flying to the Philippines and sexually assaulting underage boys he had met online.” Professor Williams was co-editor of a 1997 book, Overcoming Heterosexism and Homophobia, and also co-edited the 2003 book Gay and Lesbian Rights in the United States: A Documentary History. A random coincidence . . .

In May, Indiana police arrested Ball State University math instructor Brian Kenneth Siebenaler, 48, on child pornography charges. A search found “thousands of images (and) videos of nude and semi-nude boys.” Siebenaler reportedly told police he had developed an “interest in boys about 10 to 15 years ago.” A random coincidence . . .

Also in May, former University of Nebraska-Kearney psychology professor Joseph Benz, 55, guilty of “possessing more than 20,000 child pornography images on his computer, including images of babies being sexually assaulted.” This was probably just a random coincidence . . .

In April, police in Pennsylvania arrested Villanova University history and classical studies professor Christopher Haas, 60, on charges of possessing more than 400 images of child pornography. Professor Haas had previously been investigated for similar allegations by federal officials, but that was just a random coincidence.

Professor Alyssa Azotea (psychology, Simmons College),Professor Michael Dean Stroup (economics, Stephen F. Austin State University), Professor James Francis Quinn (criminology, University of North Texas), Professor Douglas Paul Dohrman (health science, Texas A&M University), Professor Christopher DeZutter (chemistry, University of Minnesota-Rochester), Professor Noel Campbell (business, University of Central Arkansas), Professor Kevin Sullivan (public health, Emory University), Professor Amol Kharabe (business, Ohio University), Professor J. Martin Favor (African American studies, Dartmouth College) — would anyone care to guess what they have in common?

Yes, all of them were arrested on child pornography charges.

These random coincidences just keep piling up, don’t they? Some people might suspect “immoral lifestyles” and “pathological patterns of thinking” had become commonplace on American university campuses. But this could only be possible if Commie Dopehead Sex Maniacs had taken over the country, and that could never happen, could it?

Bill and Hillary Clint at Yale University, 1970.

 

Comments